Re: Then why did Wasserman Schultz and Brazile both have to resign (or fired from jobs

quote:See, this is why there's no point in continuing: You're stuck in the throes of a conspiracy theory.

But the Russian email hacks (of John Podesta) did show evidence of behind the scenes activity to change primary dates for the benefit of Hillary Clinton.

quote:Well, just one thing: You don't get to have it both ways. You can't say that "Sanders won Michigan because of his great debate performance" right after insisting that "the debate schedule clearly helped Clinton."

But Brazile did get fired from CNN for secretly giving her debate questions ahead of time.

I was quoted:

quote:The super-delegates were all the discussion about "responsible people who will help Democrats select a winning candidate", when the real discussion should have been centered around the need to open the primaries so the Democratic primary didn't get so distorted with crazy partisan voters that were clueless.

Rrhain responded:

quote:And as mentioned previously (please try to keep up), if you make the super-delegates proportional or even remove them from the equation completely, Clinton still beat Sanders.

I was saying that they weren't trying to make the primary voters represent the general public (Sanders had to cry foul about the lack of an open primary in Kentucky), and it was never part of the discussion. The party operatives wanted the rules to favor Hillary, NOT TO ENSURE A NOMINEE WHO BETTER REPRESENTED THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

I simply was saying that Sanders would have won Kentucky if the primary had been an "Open primary" (as most agree with)

You then said.

quote:And Trump would have won the popular vote if not for all of those "illegal" voters, right?

Question: Who decides how a state's determination of candidate is carried out?

Hint: It isn't the DNC.Hint: It wasn't Clinton, either.

I already showed that the party elites can cancel an election if they don't like the results. Plus they can deny delegates awarded to a candidate even if the election isn't thrown out. See the link to the discussion with NoNukes from a few years ago.

But lets assume you are correct about the party elites and the DNC not controlling voting outcomes (I said they controlled who could vote in Kentucky - and by extension my point would apply to other states like New York and all the rest)

Can you say the same thing of superdelegates?

Are they not largely from the DNC?

quote:For Democrats, superdelegates fall into four categories based on other positions they hold, and are formally described (in Rule 9.A) as "unpledged party leader and elected official delegates"[4] (unpledged PLEO delegates) consisting of1.Elected members of the Democratic National Committee: "the chairs and vice chairs of each state and territorial Democratic Party; 212 national committeemen and committeewomen elected to represent their states; top officials of the DNC itself and several of its auxiliary groups (such as the Democratic Attorneys General Association, the National Federation of Democratic Women and the Young Democrats of America); and 75 at-large members who are nominated by the party chairman and chosen by the full DNC."[3] Most of the at-large members "are local party leaders, officeholders and donors or representatives of important Democratic constituencies, such as organized labor."[3] There were 437 DNC members (with 433 votes) who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[3]2.Democratic Governors (including territorial governors and the Mayor of the District of Columbia). There were 21 Democratic Governors who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[3]3.Democratic Members of Congress. There were 191 U.S. Representatives (including non-voting delegates from Washington, D.C. and territories) and 47 U.S. Senators (including Washington, D.C. shadow senators) who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[3]4.Distinguished party leaders (consisting of current and former Presidents, Vice Presidents, congressional leaders, and DNC chairs). There were 20 of these who were superdelegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention.[3]

Re: Then why did Wasserman Schultz and Brazile both have to resign (or fired from jobs

I need to clarify something Rrhain said, because he seems to forget all the Pro Hillary conspiracy theories that accused Sanders of relying on non-Democrats (and Republican moles voting for Sanders in open primaries) to win states.

It was a common accusation on sites like Democratic Underground (a site that is packed with Pro Hillary voters), plus you would find opinion articles attacking Sanders for his poor performance among Democrats.

I said "Kentucky would have been a Sanders win had the primaries not been closed"

Here are the comments of Rrhain

quote:And Trump would have won the popular vote if not for all of those "illegal" voters, right?

Question: Who decides how a state's determination of candidate is carried out?

Hint: It isn't the DNC.Hint: It wasn't Clinton, either.

(I almost want to respond that "Hillary would have won the electoral college if Russia hadn't hacked the DNC emails, right?", but I won't)

Here is a look at the Sander's performance among non Democrats, and it is based on exit polls. Data for every single state (available) breaking down who supported Sanders and Hillary.

quote:

May 19, 2016 at 12:20 PM

The Hidden Importance Of The Sanders Voter

Many of them are independents, and they could be key to Clinton’s general election success.

By Nate Silver

Filed under 2016 Election

That’s because a lot of Sanders voters don’t identify as Democrats. Exit polls have been conducted in 27 primary and caucus states so far, and Clinton has won among voters who identify as Democrats in all but Vermont, New Hampshire and Wisconsin (where she tied Sanders). But she’s won self-identified independents only in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi.

....Overall throughout the primaries and caucuses, I estimate, Clinton is beating Sanders by 27 percentage points among self-identified Democrats but losing to Sanders by 31 points among voters who call themselves independents but voted in the Democratic primaries.

The issue is that the party elite made sure that the deck was stacked in favor of Hillary Clinton, and not based on getting a candidate that could win the general election.

They wanted to have voting primaries that prevented voters from voting in the primary IF THEY WERE MORE LIKELY THAN NOT TO LEAN TOWARD SANDERS. (The John Podesta email hack shows his secret scheming to get the primary schedule manipulated to favor Hillary IN A WELL CALCULATED date placement. Or he at least had a educated hunch that early primaries would favor Hillary. The New York state primary was the target of a manipulation)

I frequently get attacked for showing how the process favored Hillary via secret "conspiracies", and indeed there was a lot of behind the scenes manipulation where there was frank discussion (albeit in secret) about helping Hillary.

However, I'm not saying that every last decision was based on a conspiracy. I'm saying that it was a lie that the DNC and (by extension) the super delegates were simply non-partial umpires just trying to call balls and strikes in a fair regulated contest.

They were Pro Hillary all the way and they used every trick in the book to ensure that the rules favored her.

Apr 27, 2016 · Video embedded · Well there are two reasons why Sanders should very much stay in the race. The first is practical. In addition to being only a …

Look at how these quotes are mostly a month before the final June 6 primary.

Look at the situation going into June 6, 2016.

Even, after 44 states (with 6 left: California, New Mexico, New Jersey, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota) had voted (as late as June 5 it was 44) Sanders could have won the voter-selected "pledged delegates" if he won 73% of the vote overall. (or if he got 73% of the delegates up on that night)

The required percentage was much lower as you backtrack in time.

He always had to look like an optimistic fool to suggest that he only needed 55% of remaining delegates (roughly at the midway point - when 25 states had voted - even though the conventional narrative was that he needed about 70% of remaining delegates even then BECAUSE OF THE SUPERS)

This is a major part of my point.

The other part is the major calculation that "electability" plays in primary voters choice of candidate. The primary voters are extremely strategic.

quote:

February 11, 2016 7:00 am

Electability May Be Hillary Clinton’s Secret Weapon

By Ed Kilgore

....Interestingly enough, entrance polls from Iowa and exit polls from New Hampshire show almost identical percentages of Democratic and Republican participants saying “Can win in November” is the top candidate quality they are looking for (as compared to perceptions of candidates’ empathy, honesty, and experience). But how these premature general-election worrywarts distribute their support differs considerably

Among the 21 percent of Iowa Republicans placing a premium on electability, 44 percent caucused for Marco Rubio, 24 percent for Donald Trump, and 22 percent for Ted Cruz. As it happens, all three of these candidates stand for different theories of how a general-election campaign would be waged.

But among the 20 percent of Iowa Democrats prioritizing electability, 77 percent caucused for Hillary Clinton and only 17 percent for Bernie Sanders.

In New Hampshire, 12 percent of Republicans and 12 percent of Democrats ranked electability first among candidate characteristics.

Again, the Republicans so inclined were scattered, with 33 percent voting for Trump, 29 percent for Rubio (far above his overall percentage), and 16 percent for Kasich (New Hampshire Republicans were not, it appears, as impressed with Cruz’s “54 million missing evangelicals” electability argument, since only 6 percent of electability-first voters went in his direction).

Look at this example of corruption between Hillary Clinton's people and a DNC Superdelegate.

quote:Question: Who decides how a state's determination of candidate is carried out?

Hint: It isn't the DNC.Hint: It wasn't Clinton, either.

Here is a verified email that was centered around using the DNC powerhouses to design a primary schedule to defeat a progressive challenger to Hillary Clinton in the primary(though the April 26, 2014 date was nearly 6 months before Sanders announced his candidacy)

Had a great meeting with Berman today. We discussed him taking the lead onthe strategy outlined in his memo: (1) Seeing if we can get MA and VT topush their primaries back, (2) Keep the big blue states (NY, NJ, CA, etc)from moving their primaries earlier and (3) Trying to get LA and WV to joinSuper Tuesday.As we discussed in NY, keeping the red states early makes sense if she hasa primary (as long as there isn't a primary competitor winning significantAA votes), but also increases the likelihood the Rs nominate someoneextreme.We agreed that if she gets a significant primary challenger, we need toconsider changing course and getting NY, NJ, and maybe others to move theirdates earlier to give her hefty early wins.Jeff is going to put together action items for each state that we willreview. We may need allies to help in this process but we're going to lookat each state one step at a time, limiting as much as possible theperception of direct intervention by the principals.

Here is commentary

quote:Thanks to the hacked emails of the Democrat National Committee released over the summer by WikiLeaks, it became readily apparent to all who would look that the Democrat Party worked hand-in-hand with the campaign of Hillary Clinton to ensure that she eventually secured the nomination.

In short, they “rigged” the process as much as possible to stymie the upstart campaign of the surprisingly popular self-proclaimed socialist Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, while simultaneously rolling out a red carpet for Clinton’s ultimate coronation.

Now we see further evidence of the Clinton campaign’s efforts at finagling the Democrat primary process in her favor. Yes, we have another release by WikiLeaks, this time from the cache of emails somehow obtained from campaign chair John Podesta.

On April 26, 2014, campaign manager Robby Mook sent a message to chief Clinton aide Cheryl Mills, adviser David Plouffe and Podesta, with a subject line that read only “Berman,” presumably referring to Clinton consultant, lobbyist and DNC superdelegate Jeff Berman.

The email seemed to indicate that efforts were under way to attempt to shift various primary dates around on the calendar in a manner that would most effectively improve Clinton’s chances of winning.

Mook wrote: “(1) Seeing if we can get MA and VT to push their primaries back, (2) Keep the big blue states (NY, NJ, CA, etc) from moving their primaries earlier and (3) Trying to get LA and WV to join Super Tuesday.”

obbyists are not only staffing and financing Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, they’re also tipping the nomination process in her favor by serving as so-called superdelegates to the Democratic National Convention.

Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire Democratic primary by more than 22 percentage points and by doing so, earned 15 delegates to Clinton’s 9. So it came as a shock to many observers when Clinton, despite losing the second biggest rout in state history, walked away with the same number of delegates.

That’s because Clinton had the support of six New Hampshire unpledged delegates — better known as superdelegates — consisting of prominent elected officials and members of the Democratic National Committee, who have the same power as the delegates chosen by voters. An Associated Press survey found that superdelegates nationally overwhelmingly supported Clinton.

There are 712 superdelegates in all, which is about 15 percent of the total delegates available and 30 percent of the total needed to win the nomination. If the nomination process is close, superdelegates may effectively pick the party’s presidential nominee, potentially overriding the will of voters.

The following individuals are unelected, Clinton-supporting superdelegates who simultaneously work in the lobbying industry:

Jeff Berman, well-known for his delegate-strategy work in the past, is being paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign to organize her delegate-counting effort while himself being a superdelegate. A “top lobbyist” at Bryan Cave LLP, Berman previously worked as a lobbyist for the private prison company Geo Group and as a lobbyist helping TransCanada build support for the Keystone XL.

....

Update: After publishing this story, we noticed several other Clinton-supporting superdelegates who work in the lobbying industry. See the tweets below (and click here to follow the links provided):

quote:In further emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, leaked online in early October, Clinton campaign officials are shown planning ahead the primary schedule to set some important disputes, such as New York and New Jersey, earlier than in 2008 so as to benefit Clinton.[13][14]

Now we might see how California was placed dead last on the primary calendar. I know Hillary's people didn't want us to find out. Too bad for them and the corrupt DNC. They wanted their conspiracy to be a secret with "limited exposure".

Super delegates were designing the primary calendar to defeat a progressive.

So he would be trailing badly

quote:

Democrats to Sanders: Time to wind it down

By BURGESS EVERETT 03/21/2016 05:21 AM EDT

fter holding their fire on Sanders for the better part of a year, the senators — all backers of Hillary Clinton — are gently calling on Sanders to face the reality that there’s almost no chance he’s going to be the Democratic nominee. They don’t say outright he should quit; doing so would be counterproductive, they say.

But nearly a dozen Democratic lawmakers suggested in interviews that Sanders should focus more on stopping Donald Trump and less on why he believes Clinton’s stands on trade, financial regulation and foreign policy would make her a flawed president.

....

The subtext of these comments is the general view among Democrats that Sanders has no path to win. Clinton has nearly double the number of delegates that Sanders has, and she swept the Vermont independent in three distinct regions of the country last week.

....

“It will be almost impossible for Sen. Sanders to catch up. And he should do the math and draw his own conclusions,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.).

....Richard Sugarman, a former roommate of Sanders, was accustomed to his arguing of legislative dreams late into the night. These dreams have now drawn the support of 1,011 delegates in the presidential primaries.

While 1,011 may sound like an impressive number, and is certainly a step up from the repeated election defeats garnishing his early career, it pales in comparison to Hillary Clinton’s 1,712 delegate votes.....

Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland feels that it would be best for the party if Sanders were to drop out.

“It will be almost impossible for Sen. Sanders to catch up,” Mikulski said. “He should do the math and draw his own conclusions.”

Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton by more than 100,000 votes in Wisconsin's Democratic primary, securing his seventh win in eight contests and providing more momentum for his presidential campaign ahead of the New York primary.

But in terms of delegates, Sanders's success was more modest.

ccording to The Associated Press, Clinton will take 36 delegates compared with 47 for Sanders.Worse, because seven superdelegates from Wisconsin are expected to back Clinton, according to MSNBC, Sanders's big win among voters translates to him emerging with just four more delegates than the former New York senator.

That means that Sanders is doing little to chip away at Clinton's substantial overall delegate lead.

Still a long way to go for the 2026 majority of voter selected delegates.

But the super delegates were being used to say that it was mathmatically impossible for Sanders to win and way back in the March 20/21 period.

Sanders was winning big in the weeks after March 20/21 when he was supposedly so far behind that he could not win mathmatically.

(He only lost voter selected delegates 54% to 46% in the end. He never needed to win too many more than 55%-60% of remaining unpledged delegates until the end of April when he lost New York. But he was said to need like 70% of remaining delegates going into New York)

It took the California race (the last state to be decided aside from perhaps Montana) for Hillary to get the majority needed (and going into the night, she didn't even have enough delegates to win EVEN WITH THE SUPERDELEGATES already on he side by design). On June 6.

But back to the primary calendar.

NoNukes said that it was crazy conspiracy crap to even consider that Hillary was fortunate to get a lot of right wing states early in the process(specifically the southern ones). Indeed I sidestepped the issue of a "conspiracy" actually. Read my post.

I seem to have avoided considering the fact that a conspiracy was actually at work in placing the right wing states earlier and California much later (dead last actually).

I was too naive actually.

Not too willing to jump on conspiracy theories.

Yep.

(Wonder if NoNukes will evolve with more light being cast on what was seemingly destined to be cast in darkness)

NoNukes said that it was crazy conspiracy crap to even consider that Hillary was fortunate to get a lot of right wing states early in the process

Is that what I said, you lying sack of shit? No, it is not.

You are a piece of work. LNA.

Again, Bernie ran a very competitive race, but he lost most states, and he was not competitive in the largest states, nor in the states with large diverse urban areas. Even in Michigan, an analysis of his close win shows that Hilary kicked the crap out of him in all of the states urban areas. That is why Bernies lost.

I've never tried to argue that the Democratic party was neutral or fair to Bernie. I complained similarly about the way Trump was being treated until it was pointed out to me that the parties pick the candidates they want to represent them. Bernie's reputation is that he is an independent, not a democrat, and while he sometimes supports democratic candidates, that is not always the case. That probably cost him the support of the party.

Bernie's ideas were much better than Clinton's IMO, but Bernie did not win the nomination. Bernie seems to understand that much better than does your dumb conspiracy stuff.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

quote:Superdelegates "have never been a determining factor in who our nominee is since they've been in place since 1984."— Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Monday, March 21st, 2016 in an interview on Fox Business News

They sure did influence the media coverage. Bernie was defeated from the start with Hillary and her big super delegate tallies frequently used as a yardstick.

After Wisconsin, Bernie needed 55% of the remaining (non-superdelegate) delegates to lead Hillary among voter chosen delegates. Not bad considering he had already suffered having to deal with 11 southern states. He actually had (post-Wisconsin) beaten her 16 to 7 in non southern states. Now it is 17-12 for Bernie outside the south and he is down 23 to 17 in 40 states total.

But the media kept saying he needed around 70% of remaining delegates. Because of the supers.

This message is a reply to: Message 351 by AZPaul3, posted 04-27-2016 5:41 PM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

You quickly responded by quoting me in a small snip, "Not bad considering he had already suffered having to deal with 11 southern states."

Your response was this:

quote:That's right. Southern states are a Democratic party plot designed to keep Sanders from winning the primary.

Here was the most relevant paragraph in my later response

quote:They gave 15% of the delegates (or at least a net of 10% anyway) to Clinton right from the start. The media was happy to sell the narrative (big shock). And even more convenient that the primaries were front loaded with southern states (one can offer a straw-man joke about whether that was a deliberate conspiracy, but understand that the issue should be one of perspective - that being the media preferred perspective is to say "it's all over for any Bernie momentum after Hillary clobbered him early down south" and the non-corrupt perspective that less favorable, to Hillary, non-southern states should have their say without this "it's all over" b.s.)

I said it was a "straw-man joke" (your mocking me with the sentence above "Democratic party plot" sentence) because I wasn't quite calling the primary schedule a plot. I was saying that Sanders shouldn't have been considered down as much as the conventional blather made his deficit out to be, because the more liberal states didn't vote yet. He did, after all, only loose the final "unpledged delegate" race by about 54% to 46%.

Regardless, you did attempt to portray my comments as conspiracy laced nonsense.

Next set of comments in your present post 50 in this thread.

quote:Again, Bernie ran a very competitive race, but he lost most states, and he was not competitive in the largest states, nor in the states with large diverse urban areas. Even in Michigan, an analysis of his close win shows that Hilary kicked the crap out of him in all of the states urban areas. That is why Bernies lost.

But he was competitive in California (not to mention Illinois plus others), and this gets to my point.

(He lost New Mexico about 51.5% to 48.5% and that state is 60% minority.)

(Nevada was a 5% loss.)

(A pro Sanders Hindu just won the Seattle congressional seat btw)

My point is that the primary schedule (like the debate schedule) was rigged. It mattered to the Clinton team to rig the whole process. They knew what mattered.

quote:I've never tried to argue that the Democratic party was neutral or fair to Bernie. I complained similarly about the way Trump was being treated until it was pointed out to me that the parties pick the candidates they want to represent them. Bernie's reputation is that he is an independent, not a democrat, and while he sometimes supports democratic candidates, that is not always the case. That probably cost him the support of the party.

So election manipulation doesn't matter then? (I don't think the GOP did anything to hurt Trump. The early southern primaries helped Trump and there were a ton of debates.)

You seem to feel that the process made no difference in the outcome.

Why was the Clinton team trying so hard to rig the process then?

The evidence is overwhelming for collaboration between the DNC and Clinton team (amazing leaked emails are available, and I'm not even talking about the Donna Brazil drama - where she first attempted to deny leaking specific questions of Roland Martin, then the evidence was so overwhelming that she got sacked.).

You keep wanting to say, "But Hillary won anyway".

But "Sanders lost anyway"

That is like saying that the person who was murdered, "Died anyway".

quote:Bernie's ideas were much better than Clinton's IMO, but Bernie did not win the nomination. Bernie seems to understand that much better than does your dumb conspiracy stuff.

Will you accuse me of being a "lying sack of poo poo" if I say you called my quotes of leaked DNC emails "silly conspiracy stuff".

Even saying the exact words "dumb conspiracy stuff" will get me pied in the face I'm sure.

Can you tell me what you think of this email from the Clinton team?(the one I quoted above) (the ONLY one quoted to date)

"We may need allies to help in this process but we're going to lookat each state one step at a time, limiting as much as possible theperception of direct intervention by the principals."

Seems they wanted to keep it secret if possible.

Who is "they"

What is "it"?

(hint, it had to do with moving each and every state, if possible, to a date on the calendar that helped a certain somebody, and it very much depended on whether a white progressive challenger was a potentially strong opponent)

quote: new batch of emails released by Wikileaks from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta have confirmed what many long suspected about the Democratic Party primary debates: that they were rigged to protect and support former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy.

On April 27th, 2015, Podesta received an email titled, “Revised debate memo,” written by Clinton campaign chief administrative officer Charlie Baker. The memo explained how the Clinton campaign wanted the debates to be setup to help their candidate.

The revised memo, which was also sent to Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and longtime Clinton advisor Ronald Klain, details the objectives of the Clinton campaign regarding debates. It discusses how they had worked with the DNC to get what they wanted and box out Clinton’s primary opponents.

["]Through internal discussions, we concluded that it was in our interest to: 1) limit the number of debates (and the number in each state); 2) start the debates as late as possible; 3) keep debates out of the busy window between February 1 and February 27, 2016 (Iowa to South Carolina); 4) create a schedule that would allow the later debates to be cancelled if the race is for practical purposes over; 5) encourage an emphasis on local issues and local media participants in the debate formats; and 6) ensure a format that provides equal time for all candidates and does not give the moderator any discretion to focus on one candidate.["]

Baker says these objectives, to limit the debates and keep them out of the public eye as much as possible, have been part of discussion with the DNC. Baker also notes that the DNC was on board and working with the Clinton campaign to jam her opponents’ attempts to get both more and more visible debates.

["]Through discussion of these goals with the DNC their current plan is to begin a debate schedule that would commence in early October, with one debate a month, one each in the early primary and caucus states, and the remaining 2 post South Carolina (we will need to push them to post March 1 and then the later 2 debates would be cancelled if the race ends). The DNC’s current plan is to release the attached press release (which lacks this specificity but confirms the number and start window for the debates). The other campaigns have advocated (not surprisingly) for more debates and for the schedule to start significantly earlier. Mo and Anita believe that this announcement prior to the actual entry into the race of other candidates will strengthen their hand as they lock a schedule in with local media partners and state parties.["]

That’s right, coordination right down to a Clinton campaign pre-approved press release. The game was over before it began.

It should be recognized that most observers understood the DNC was not playing fair. Senator Bernie Sanders and many of his supporters explicitly accused the DNC of rigging the debates on behalf of Hillary Clinton. As we now know, that accusation was right on the money.

Then-DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz pushed back on the accusation by Sanders and others, saying, “I did my best to make sure, along with my staff and along with our debate partners, to come up with a schedule that we felt was going to maximize the opportunity for voters to see our candidates.”

Wasserman-Schultz was later forced to resign as DNC Chair after emails from the DNC, also leaked by Wikileaks, showed her plotting behind the scenes to sabotage Sanders’ campaign. The DNC Chair, Donna Brazile, has also been implicated in sabotaging Sanders’ campaign while working at CNN.

Not what the DNC chair said back in the day of the decision (when the campaign was still happening and when the leaks were over a year away.

quote:

Democratic Party Head Stands Firm on Debate Schedule Amid Controversy

By Sam Frizell September 10, 2015

Despite internal dissent at the Democratic National Committee and criticism from the party’s presidential candidates, party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Thursday that she would not change the primary debate rules.

Wasserman Schultz also said on Thursday that she alone made the decision to set the so-called debate exclusivity rule, which bars the Democratic presidential candidates from participating in more than six debates.

“We’re not changing the process,” Wasserman Schultz said at a breakfast Thursday morning hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. “We’re having six debates, and the he candidates will be uninvited to any debates if they accept invitation to any debates outside the 6-debate schedule.”

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley have criticized the DNC’s debate schedule, saying it unfairly limits their time before a national television audience. A number of top Democratic officials have also criticized the rule, with DNC vice-chairs R.T. Rybak and Tulsi Gabbard saying this week that the rule to limit the presidential candidates to six debates “is a mistake.”

“It limits the ability of the American people to benefit from a strong, transparent, vigorous debate between our Presidential candidates, as they make the important decision of who will be our Democratic Presidential nominee,” the vice-chairs said in a joint statement Wednesday night.

MORE: O’Malley Lobbies Sanders For More Debates

Wasserman Schultz has said the exclusivity rule prevents the chaotic and unwieldy process for candidates. Critics say that the process unfairly favors frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

O’Malley has accused the DNC of rigging the debate schedule in favor of Clinton, by limiting her exposure on a national stage. Local party officials in Iowa and New Hampshire, the first two contests in the Democratic primary, have also opposed the rule. Activists are planning a protest outside of DNC headquarters on Wednesday, the day of the next Republican debate.

Wasserman Schultz said that the exclusivity rule was intended to prevent the candidates from participating in too many debates, which are time-consuming to prepare for. There were over twenty debates in the 2008 Democratic primary.

“It’s labor intensive to prepare for a debate,” Wasserman Schultz said. “A responsible candidate comes off the road, has to devote staff and personal resources to getting prepared … It’s important that we keep candidates with schedule that allows them to really engage in [the primary campaign] process.”

On Thursday, Wasserman Schultz also said that she alone made the decision to set the exclusivity rule.

“I consulted a variety of people, including former DNC chairs, and they advised me and I believed myself taht we needed to make sure there was tighter control over the sanctioned debate process,” she said “The party chair makes the decision ultimately over the way debate process is structured.”

The Republican party has adopted the same exclusivity rule, though the party is hosting nine debates instead of six. Activists on the left complain that the disparity is helping Republicans grab headlines.

Clinton has said that she would be open to participating in more debates.

Beginning in February 2015, the DNC, through its communications operation (Mo Elleithee and Anita Dunn) began discussing with representatives of potential Democratic candidates, the establishment of a "sanctioned" schedule of debates. The DNC is now close to rolling that proposal out publicly.

....Through internal discussions, we concluded that it was in our interest to: 1) limit the number of debates (and the number in each state); 2) start the debates as late as possible; 3) keep debates out of the busy window between February 1 and February 27, 2016 (Iowa to South Carolina); 4) create a schedule that would allow the later debates to be cancelled if the race is for practical purposes over; 5) encourage an emphasis on local issues and local media participants in the debate formats; and 6) ensure a format that provides equal time for all candidates and does not give the moderator any discretion to focus on one candidate. Through discussion of these goals with the DNC their current plan is to begin a debate schedule that would commence in early October, with one debate a month, one each in the early primary and caucus states, and the remaining 2 post South Carolina (we will need to push them to post March 1 and then the later 2 debates would be cancelled if the race ends). The DNC's current plan is to release the attached press release (which lacks this specificity but confirms the number and start window for the debates). The other campaigns have advocated (not surprisingly) for more debates and for the schedule to start significantly earlier. Mo and Anita believe that this announcement prior to the actual entry into the race of other candidates will strengthen their hand as they lock a schedule in with local media partners and state parties.

The plan came from the Hillary campaign.

Then the announcement by the DNC.

quote:

By/ Ellen Uchimiya

/ CBS News/

May 5, 2015, 3:26 PM

DNC announces presidential debate schedule

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) announced that it's going to sanction six primary Democratic debates beginning this fall.

The debates will be sponsored by a combination of state Democratic parties, national and local media companies and civic organizations. Each of the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina will host a DNC debate.How many GOP presidential debates is too many?

DNC Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement that the debates should "give voters ample opportunity to see candidates side-by-side, while remaining manageable for all of the candidates."

The committee says that the schedule of six debates "is consistent with the precedent set" in 2004 and 2008, but this year, the DNC is also implementing an exclusivity requirement, requiring any candidate or debate sponsor interested in participating to do so exclusively, that is, to respect the sanctions set by the DNC.

Likely presidential candidate Martin O'Malley already appears to be chafing at the exclusivity requirement. His spokesperson, Lis Smith, told CBS News in a statement, "If Governor O'Malley decides to run, we will expect a full, robust, and inclusive set of debates--both nationally and in early primary and caucus states. This has been customary in previous primary seasons. In a year as critical as 2016, exclusivity does no one any favors."

Hillary Clinton, for her part, welcomed the debates in a Tweet, saying she was "looking forward to a real conversation," though she didn't say whether she was willing to debate six times with her Democratic opponents.